For trustees and sponsoring employers, the question is no longer simply why this has happened, but what they can do now to protect members and keep critical work on track.

The causes are interconnected: a shortage of experienced people; short-term project pressures; difficult legacy data; and years of underinvestment. Understanding those causes is important, but trustees and employers also need practical ways to reduce avoidable pressure, challenge assumptions and build a more resilient relationship with their administrator. So, if there is something that can be done, why isn’t it happening?

Bulk annuity transactions, Guaranteed Minimum Pension equalisation and data improvement projects all require strong technical skills, yet experienced technical administrators are in short supply. Competition for that expertise is intense among third-party administrators and insurers, particularly as more schemes complete buyouts and members’ benefits are converted into individual insurance policies. This competition increases recruitment pressure and makes it harder for providers to maintain sufficient capacity across both project work and day-to-day administration.

When defined benefit schemes were less mature, and providers could expect a longer pipeline of ongoing work, third-party administrators and in-house teams were more willing to invest time in training new recruits. Many current workstreams are short term and time critical, reducing the opportunity to develop staff from the outset. Specialist buy-in and Guaranteed Minimum Pension equalisation teams therefore tend to draw experienced administrators away from business-as-usual services. Those vacancies may remain unfilled because employers expect the individuals to return when the projects end, leaving day-to-day teams under sustained pressure in the meantime.

Many schemes still hold information outside the main administration system or only within archived historical files. As a result, data preparation for pensions dashboards or an insurance transaction can be slower and more burdensome than is ideal. Experienced administrators are often best placed to distinguish relevant evidence from background material, but trustees can help by treating data quality as a continuing governance priority, confirming benefit specifications and decision histories, and resolving ambiguities before they become critical-path issues.

Administration has historically been treated as a low-margin, low-value function, contributing to underinvestment across the sector. Trustees and employers can begin to change that by engaging regularly with their administrator, understanding the resources required to deliver both business-as-usual services and major projects and assessing value rather than price alone. In a commercial environment, providers are unlikely to invest sustainably in recruitment, training and technology unless clients recognise and are prepared to fund the service required.

Cyber security is now a core component of resilient pension scheme administration. In the 1980s, an in-house pensions department might have shared a single computer, using records held on paper or microfiche which were impossible to access remotely. Today, maintaining standards such as ISO 27001, adopting government-backed schemes such as Cyber Essentials or Cyber Essentials Plus, operating real-time threat detection, preparing for cyber incidents and maintaining robust access controls all require continuing investment. Trustees and employers should therefore regard cyber capability as part of administration quality and resilience, rather than as a separate and optional technology cost.

Providers are also increasing investment in AI, digital tools, member portals and technologies such as biometric identity checks. Over time, schemes may make greater use of mobile applications, voice recognition and personalised content to support members’ retirement journeys. These developments require significant investment, but technology and people should not be treated as competing priorities. Digital tools can remove repetitive work, while trained administrators remain essential for oversight, judgement and complex cases.

The combined pressures of regulation, technology, data quality and changing member expectations mean that pensions administration is becoming more complex rather than simply more automated. Continuous learning is therefore essential, both for experienced practitioners adapting to new requirements and for new entrants developing the technical and communication skills the role demands.

The Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Administration Standards Association and the Pensions Management Institute are increasingly highlighting the value of good administration and the need for sustained investment. Their practical tools can help trustees and scheme managers assess service quality, clarify responsibilities, identify risks and build more effective working relationships with administrators. Those resources are most valuable when used as part of regular governance rather than only after service problems or project delays emerge.

Pensions administration requires a combination of numerical ability, attention to detail, technical understanding and clear communication. Development should therefore cover not only pensions knowledge but also the judgement and interpersonal skills needed to handle complex cases and explain outcomes to members. For people already in the industry, the PMI’s mentoring and development programme offers those at an early stage of their career an opportunity to build that broader capability.

Investment in development benefits both providers and schemes. Effective training can improve work quality, reduce avoidable errors, strengthen productivity and lessen reliance on a small number of experienced individuals. It can also improve job satisfaction and retention, helping administration teams build the depth and continuity needed to provide a sustainable service.

Trustees and employers do not need to solve the industry-wide skills shortage themselves, but they can reduce the pressure on their own schemes. Start by agreeing with the administrator which services and projects are genuinely critical, what can be sequenced differently and what information the trustee or employer must provide. Ask for a realistic resource plan covering business-as-usual work as well as major projects, including named dependencies, key-person risks and escalation points. Review data quality as an ongoing governance issue rather than waiting for a transaction or regulatory deadline, and make prompt decisions when historic records, benefit specifications or member communications require trustee input. Finally, assess administration on service resilience, staff development, cyber controls and data improvement as well as headline cost. None of these steps creates additional administrators overnight, but together they can prevent avoidable work, improve planning and make scarce expertise more effective.

Technology will change the role of the junior defined benefit pensions administrator, but it is unlikely to remove the need for that role. The more important question is how providers can use AI to support entry-level work while continuing to develop the knowledge and judgement that future administrators will require.

AI is only as effective as the data and controls that support it. As highlighted in The Pensions Regulator’s AI plan, risks include inaccurate information and potential fraud. Administrators will therefore remain responsible for overseeing outputs and applying human judgement to cases outside established patterns. Complex questions involving trust law, historic decisions and scheme-specific practice will continue to require experienced interpretation.

The launch of pensions dashboards is likely to increase questions from members, although the scale and timing of that demand will vary between schemes. Trustees should ask how their administrator is forecasting enquiry volumes, updating member communications and protecting business-as-usual service levels during peak periods. Better-informed members are a positive outcome, but schemes should plan now for the additional explanation and support that some members will need.

Pensions administration academies and apprenticeships are therefore a welcome development. They can give school leavers with GCSE Maths and English access to structured on-the-job training and the PMI’s Level 2 Award in Pensions Essentials. For trustees and employers, the relevant question is not whether junior staff are used, but whether providers have appropriate training, supervision, quality controls and escalation routes so that new entrants can develop without compromising member service.

The industry must meet today’s deadlines without allowing short-term delivery pressures to deepen tomorrow’s capacity problem. Trustees and employers can support that objective by planning projects realistically, improving data before deadlines become urgent, scrutinising key-person dependencies and recognising the investment required for a resilient administration service. Providers, in turn, need to convert that investment into structured training, stronger succession planning and sustainable career paths. The capacity crunch will not disappear quickly, but practical action now can protect member service while helping the next generation of administrators develop.

Sarah Bennett, Consultant – Hughes Price Walker